namemyapp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authentication requirement (free namemy.app API key with a URL) and the fact that queries hit external sources, consistent with openWorldHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with the core capability front-loaded; the API key note is bracketed as secondary detail. No filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and the auth prerequisite. It does not indicate the shape of the result (e.g., boolean vs. conflict report with matches), which an agent would need to know to interpret the response, but otherwise it is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with two well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format, syntax, or example detail for 'name' or 'context' beyond what is already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb (check) and resource (brand name) and enumerates the exact data sources consulted: USPTO trademarks, live company homepages, and search results. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_domain or generate_names, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States pricing ('Free for all tiers') and the prerequisite of a free API key, which is useful context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over check_domain or list_domains, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful traits: purchase is charged to a stored payment method, connect is validated before anything is bought, and a connect failure does not roll back the purchase. It does not state refund/reversibility of the purchase itself, which for a destructiveHint=true transaction would be worth knowing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three front-loaded sentences: primary action first, then the optional combined path, then the prerequisite API key. Dense but every clause carries information; the bracketed API-key note is slight clutter but operationally necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the purchase outcome ('success/failure'), the atomicity of the embedded connect step, and the auth prerequisite. Minor gap: it never says what happens if the purchase itself fails or whether the domain is immediately active.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so years, domain, and the whole connect sub-object are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that connect can be combined with the purchase call; the hostname/enum semantics come entirely from the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Purchase a domain') plus the payment mechanism and return signal, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It also references connect_domain as its equivalence point, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling buy_link or explain why to pick this over check_domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the condition for using the optional `connect` path (point at a deployment 'in the same call', same as connect_domain), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent when to prefer calling connect_domain separately instead of folding it in.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the tool works without an API key, and the actual signup/payment happens in the user's browser rather than server-side, which explains why a 'buy' tool is read-only. No return shape is described, but for a URL-producing tool that is a minor omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the usage trigger. Every clause earns its place — no filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (a URL), its availability, and the user flow. The one missing piece an agent would want is the relationship to buy_domain, so it falls just short of fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both 'domain' (with an example) and the optional 'priceUsd' are fully documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior when price is omitted. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Build a one-click purchase URL ... to buy a domain on namemy.app'. An agent knows exactly what it gets back (a URL). However, it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling buy_domain, so the boundary between 'get a link' and 'actually buy' is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use this when the user has decided on a name they like'. This is real usage context, not just a restatement. It stops short of an exclusion clause — it does not tell the agent when to prefer buy_domain over this tool, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description usefully adds the authentication prerequisite and where to obtain the key — exactly the kind of credential context that structured fields do not carry. It still omits rate limits or quota behavior for a keyed endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the capability first, then the prerequisite in brackets. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant constraint is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers what it returns (availability plus price) and the auth requirement, and no output schema exists to relieve it of more. The missing piece is routing relative to the public and bulk siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter already includes a format example ('taskflow.app'), so the description adds no additional meaning such as TLD restrictions or normalization behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check if a domain is available') plus a secondary outcome ('get its price'). The '(signed in)' title and API-key note hint at the distinction from check_domain_public, but the description never names that sibling, so differentiation is only implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The bracketed API-key requirement implies this is the authenticated variant rather than the public check, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of check_domain_public or check_domains_public_bulk as alternatives, and no statement of when this tool should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: no API key required, per-IP rate limiting, and a full inventory of what comes back (availability, retail/renewal price, registrar, buyUrl). It also warns against fabricating URLs/prices. Rate-limit specifics are absent, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the two most decision-relevant facts ('PUBLIC, NO API KEY required') before the return inventory and the routing rule. Every sentence carries information; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly, enumerating each returned field. For a one-param read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'domain' with an example. The description adds no format or syntax guidance beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case for a single fully-documented param.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('check domain availability and price') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the bulk sibling by name. An agent can tell it apart from check_domain, check_domains_public_bulk, and buy_domain without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit imperative ('Use this for EVERY candidate before recommending') and names the alternative for the bulk case ('For bulk checks... use check_domains_public_bulk'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that no API key is required, that the batch cap is 50, and that batching reduces rate-limit hits — genuine operational context the readOnly/openWorld hints do not convey. It stops short of describing failure behavior for invalid or partial batches, keeping it out of the top band.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the key differentiators (public, no key, batch of 50) and ending on the decision rule. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself by enumerating availability, price, renewal price, registrar, and buyUrl. Combined with the cost/auth and rate-limit context, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its array-of-FQDNs format plus a concrete example. The description's 'up to 50 domains' restates the schema's maxItems rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('checks up to 50 domains in ONE call') and explicitly positions itself against the sibling check_domain_public. An agent can distinguish it from check_domain and check_domain_public without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Contains an explicit routing rule: 'ALWAYS prefer this over multiple check_domain_public calls when you have more than one candidate.' That names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it spells out exactly which records are replaced (A/AAAA/CNAME on root and www) and that other records are preserved, what is returned (applied/removed records and nextSteps), and full failure semantics via the restored/live flags. The destructive nature is precisely quantified rather than just flagged.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and effect, then failure semantics, then the API-key prerequisite in a bracketed tail. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long as a single paragraph but no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates fully by documenting the return payload (records applied/removed, nextSteps) and both success and failure shapes (restored true/false, live), plus auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the mutation surface on root/www hosts, the platform-specific value requirement (Vercel may need a *.vercel-dns*.com CNAME, Railway/Fly specifics), and the verification-TXT nextSteps that map to the flow. It still doesn't define dryRun or includeWww semantics in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: point a user-owned domain at a deployment in one call, writing the platform's root and www records. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_dns_record (single record) and check/buy domain tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the 'one call' bundling and lists the supported platform targets plus the free/API-key prerequisite, giving clear context for when this beats manual record setting. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g. set_dns_record) or a when-not-to-use condition, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: an entitlement gate (subscription or one-off purchase) and an authentication requirement with a link to obtain the key. It does not say whether generation is synchronous, how long it takes, or whether it consumes credits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: scope first, then prerequisites. Bracketed API-key note is clearly separable. No filler, though the parenthetical section list is dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the section enumeration usefully sketches what comes back, and the entitlement/auth barriers are covered. But for a four-parameter generation tool, nothing explains how inputs shape the result or what an agent gets in return.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it: name, industry, description, and includeVisuals are never explained, and includeVisuals' default/effect is undisclosed. The listed sections describe output, not inputs, so they don't compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource and enumerates the kit's constituent sections (essentials, audience, personality, visual identity, voice, imagery, applications, dos-and-donts), which is unusually informative about output scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like generate_social_kit or generate_logo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real prerequisites (Founder subscription or BRAND_KIT purchase, plus a free API key with a signup URL) but never says when to prefer this tool over generate_social_kit, generate_logo, or generate_names. Usage is implied by the name rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false) but say nothing about gating. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: subscription/entitlement requirement, an external API-key dependency, and the region-sensitivity of the output. It stops short of saying what happens on a partial entitlement (e.g. does it paywall or error).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then region scope, then entitlement, then API key — a sensible priority order in three tight sentences. The bracketed API-key note reads slightly like an ad insertion but is operationally relevant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation-ish generation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, this covers the essentials: what is produced, region awareness, and the two blocking prerequisites. Only the semantics of the optional websiteUrl/contactEmail parameters are left unaddressed, and those are largely self-describing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (businessType alone). The description partially compensates by framing the 'regions' parameter with valid values (GDPR, CCPA, LGPD), which the schema does not enumerate despite the array item being a free string. It adds nothing for websiteUrl or contactEmail, leaving those unexplained in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Generate) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, Cookie Policy) for a clearly bounded subject (a business). This is unambiguous and trivially distinguishable from the naming/domain siblings like generate_names and buy_domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives strong prerequisites — Founder sub or LEGAL_KIT purchase, plus a free namemy.app API key with a signup URL — which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any when-not condition, so usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful non-structured context: paid entitlement gating (Founder sub or one-time pack) and an external API-key requirement with a URL, which the agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by output and then prerequisites. The bracketed API-key note earns its place, though the paid-tier and API-key sentences could be merged into one prerequisite clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state the shape (N variations of icon/palette/typography/layout) plus access prerequisites. The main gap is the undocumented nested preferences object, which is not addressed anywhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the business context (name/description) and that count drives the number of variations, but it says nothing about the nested 'preferences' object (styles, industry, colorPalette) or the slogan, leaving the most complex parameter undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate AI logo concepts (icon + palette + typography + layout) for a business') and the output shape ('Returns N variations'). It is distinguishable from brand_conflict_check or buy_domain, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling generate_brand_kit, whose component list sounds similar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear prerequisites (Founder subscription or one-time LOGO_PACK/BRAND_KIT purchase, plus a free API key) but no guidance on when to pick this over generate_brand_kit or generate_names. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding non-annotation context: results are verified available with pricing, and a free API key is required, including where to obtain it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded before the return-value and auth notes. The bracketed API-key aside is slightly awkward but genuinely useful, so little is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly volunteers what comes back (available names with pricing). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and an explicit auth prerequisite, an agent has nearly everything needed to call it, though a note on latency or result variability would round it out.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics for tlds, count, industry and description. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how TLD preferences interact with availability), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate brandable business names') and adds a differentiating clause about real-time domain availability with pricing, which separates it from siblings like check_domain or brand_conflict_check. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it falls just below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description never references the alternatives in the sibling set (check_domain, brand_conflict_check, generate_brand_kit), so an agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-open-world write-ish operation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations don't carry: a paid/Founder subscription gate and a mandatory API key with a URL for obtaining it. It still does not describe cost, latency, or repeat-call behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable list, with the prerequisite and API-key note following. Dense but every element carries information; the bracketed API-key sentence is slightly redundant with the preceding prerequisite sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter generator with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the access and output-shape story well but leaves the entire input contract undocumented. An agent knows it can call the tool and what it needs to pay, but not what values the 7 inputs should take (e.g., goal strings, audience format).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs — and it explains none of them. businessName, industry, targetAudience, goals, platforms, voiceTone, and description are all left for the agent to infer from their names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (social media strategy + content kit) and enumerates the concrete deliverables: posts, captions, calendar, analytics framework. This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_brand_kit and generate_legal_docs without needing to read the schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states an access prerequisite (Founder sub or SOCIAL_MEDIA_KIT purchase, plus a namemy.app API key) which is useful gating, but never says when to choose this tool over sibling generators or what contexts call for it. Usage is only implied by the deliverable list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — the free API-key authentication requirement — but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering for a 'list all' operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite bracketed separately. Every element earns its place and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple parameterless read tool with safety annotations and a stated auth requirement, the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so the agent gets no hint of what fields a returned domain record contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully documented, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List all domains') and scopes it to 'owned by the user', which implicitly separates it from siblings like check_domain or buy_domain that act on arbitrary domains. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the scope ('owned by the user'), and the API-key prerequisite is a useful gating condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as check_domain for availability lookups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real context beyond the annotations: an authenticated API-key requirement and the add-or-update semantics that explain why destructiveHint=true. It still doesn't warn that an existing record with the same host/type will be overwritten or mention propagation delay/TTL behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, use cases second, and the prerequisite in a bracketed aside that is easy to skip. No padding or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, use cases, and auth, but for a destructive 5-parameter write with no output schema it omits what a successful set returns, how existing/conflicting records are handled, and any parameter syntax beyond the schema's 20% coverage. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% — just the host field is documented. The description adds nothing about record value formats (MX priority, TXT quoting), the meaning of the enum types, or the 300s TTL default, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a 5-parameter mutation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (add or update a DNS record for a domain) and clarifies the upsert semantics that the name 'set' only implies. It is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, none of which touch DNS, though it never explicitly names a sibling as a contrast.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit use cases (pointing domains to Vercel, Netlify, or email services) and states the prerequisite of a free namemy.app API key with a link. No when-not guidance or named alternative is offered, but no sibling offers overlapping functionality, so the context is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.